The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280228 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #900 on: 16/04/2013 12:23:50 »
You could see it as a representation of the possibilities of it existing, created out of 'forces' (it's neighborhood), materializing it constantly, creating something that has to 'move' in a picture. We just need to trust that there are limits to that motion, and there we have some definitions. But the 'spin' is another thing, I don't really think it is a spin myself, because if you consider that the motion (orbital, or possibly orbit) of it around a nucleus is under 'c', as far as I get, then why would a spin become over 'c'? After all, it's the 'same particle', doing both simultaneously?

But if it is a representation of forces creating it, how come we have 'free electrons'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #901 on: 16/04/2013 12:27:57 »
Still, if you accept the definition of no propagation of light, it being a rhythm instead defined by 'c'. then particles can do all sorts of things, as distance then becomes a artifact. But that one would be very tricky to prove I think. It's only indirect evidence I'm using for that idea, no 'hard experiments'. You might say my evidence are 'weak' :) But it do solve a lot of weird stuff, in my eyes. The two slit experiments for example will then be a representation of the logic demanded relative your setup, and circumstances defining your outcome. I like it a lot because it is simple, although its implications for what we call a 'common universe' are not.
=

But it does not explain what 'spin' is as 'c' still is the regulator. Although, if 'c' can be defined as one step at Plank size, you might be able to scale it up to a 'speed' at whatever size a electron is? I wonder about that one :) but it is one Planck step in one Planck time, so you will need add both, getting a distance relative a time, all scale-wise equivalent to 'c'. But it won't tell us much thinking about it again, it's just 'c'.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 12:46:40 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #902 on: 16/04/2013 12:53:40 »
Although it gives me, at least, an idea of a 'cone' represented from locality. Starting at Planck scale, all constants locally defined, opening up into a SpaceTime, mediated by force carriers (information), which I like. Very theoretical and ignoring comparisons for it. The comparisons are defined by the informations speed in that idea, and as that is regulated relative 'c' we have a universe with contractions and 'time-dilations'. but locally, as being at Planck scale, there is no 'speed' to be defined, just a clock.
=

You need 'something to move' to define that distance, and if one step is the smallest meaningful definition of a light-quanta it won't matter if it has no 'size'. You will still not see a 'motion' there, as I think of it. Or maybe you will? But only as something flickering at 'c', not doing a distance.

A very weird thought :)
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 13:03:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #903 on: 16/04/2013 13:08:21 »
Although, if we assume that what defines a universe is just frames of reference (circumstances defining your place in a common universe), the first definition, there being 'nothing' to be seen at Planck scale, still makes the most sense to me? But I wish we could 'see' at that scale.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #904 on: 16/04/2013 14:40:40 »
What this states is also that we should have two sorts of 'constants'. One type being 'intrinsic' more or less, as 'c' and the local arrow, another type being a result of frames of reference, defining our common universe, the one we define ourselves to live in.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #905 on: 16/04/2013 14:46:30 »
And then it either should mean that you can track those other to those I call 'intrinsic', or, that we have a imaginary space containing some more definition(s) of constants, that is just as 'real' and 'unchanging'? I mean, we have frames of reference, don't we? If now the only thing would be those 'intrinsic constants', where does 'frames of reference' come from? I think there are more constants to be found, also that those create the definition of 'frames of reference'. You can state that it is 'c' creating them, but not in my universe. Because I go out from locality, which is your local arrow of time, being equivalent to 'c', and I don't really need frames of reference for that. You might say that I turn it around there.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 16:32:45 by yor_on »
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #906 on: 16/04/2013 14:48:08 »
Although it gives me, at least, an idea of a 'cone' represented from locality. Starting at Planck scale, all constants locally defined, opening up into a SpaceTime, mediated by force carriers (information), which I like. Very theoretical and ignoring comparisons for it.
I was playing with the golden ration, '1.61803399' the other day, drafting these squares and rectangles together to form the spiral that some people think represents this unfolding space/time you're referring to.

I wish I had some way to graph this and post it here because it sounds very much like what you're describing. What is curious about the diagram is, while it is true a spiral can be drawn, one can also make a representation of ever increasing spheres, one within the other, all spiraling together.

If I had some way to show this and post it, I think you might find it very interesting.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #907 on: 16/04/2013 14:52:07 »
Thinking of fractals are we :)

Me too, but maybe it's better to call it patterns. We can assume that when using scales everything will at some scale become 'constituents', those constituents representing a pattern. Then introduce a arrow of time to change the pattern, will we find fractal behaviors there?

And 'free will' too?

Maybe that is the reason why I'm still searching for that perfect explanation for how 'simple becomes complex'. Because my definition does not discuss 'complex', not really. I use as simple concepts I can find for it, and from those 'frames of reference' becomes 'complex', although related to 'c', just as locality.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #908 on: 16/04/2013 14:58:51 »
I'm still wondering about what Pincho suggested, using fractal time. You can't use it locally, because locally 'c' and the arrow are invariants in my thoughts. but maybe there is some way to relate 'frames of reference' to it? I'm so unsure on that one.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #909 on: 16/04/2013 15:01:33 »
There must be, if you define all local arrows as being the same. Or at least a constant, if I'm thinking right here :) a little like Feigenbaum's constant maybe?
==

Thinking some more, I think we need both. fractals are dynamics, just as our universe, and a constant? Well, it's a constant, isn't it?:)
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 15:06:12 by yor_on »
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #910 on: 16/04/2013 15:03:06 »
I'm still wondering about what Pincho suggested, using fractal time. You can't use it locally, because locally 'c' and the arrow are invariants in my thoughts. but maybe there is some way to relate 'frames of reference' to it? I'm so unsure on that one.
Truly, it's a shame that he's so argumentative. I've asked him many times to slow down and just try to explain himself a bit better. But he takes offense to any suggestions anyone offers.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #911 on: 16/04/2013 15:06:39 »
Well, he's young :)
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #912 on: 16/04/2013 15:08:21 »
Well, he's young :)
I wish I still were, just turned 70, what a bummer!
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #913 on: 16/04/2013 15:10:35 »
Yeah, life passes fast, but thoughts can live on.
Heh, I'm becoming a mystic :)
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #914 on: 16/04/2013 15:15:43 »
Yeah, life passes fast, but thoughts can live on.
Heh, I'm becoming a mystic :)
Sounds like we're both becoming a little more philosophical lately. And I really don't have anything against philosophy, many times it's the Genesis of scientific thought. But I do like it when we find proof, then we call it science.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #915 on: 16/04/2013 15:16:59 »
My thoughts too, philosophy is what science builds from, then science change philosophy :)
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #916 on: 16/04/2013 15:18:37 »
My thoughts too, philosophy is what science builds from, then science change philosophy :)
I'm going to get with an administrator here and see if I can download these diagrams I've been working on. I think you may enjoy them. Talk to you later........................
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #917 on: 16/04/2013 21:25:16 »
Don't read me wrong please. I'm not referring to frames of reference as unneeded. Those are what makes a universe exist. Using only some local constants you are in a vacuum, defined by some 'point'. But you can think of it from that point of view to see that there should be constants describing how frames of reference join each other. And 'c' defines the information between them as well as the local description.
=

And it makes me think of Feigenbaum's constant(s)
Because to me it has to be some fractal interpretation to it.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 22:20:22 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #918 on: 16/04/2013 22:14:33 »
The answer to how a macroscopic world becomes from a microscopic is called Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics. Now, it is hypothesis, or hypotheses,  naturally, but it also makes sense :) Well, some of it does. "Zeh (2003) argues from the notion that decoherence can explain ‘quantum phenomena’ such as particle detections that the concept of a particle in quantum field theory is itself a consequence of decoherence. That is, only fields need to be included in the fundamental concepts, and ‘particles’ are a derived concept, unlike what might be suggested by the customary introduction of fields through a process of ‘second quantisation’. Thus decoherence seems to provide a further powerful argument for the conceptual primacy of fields over particles in the question of the interpretation of quantum field theory."

So what would a 'field' be from locality, and, from 'frames of reference'?

I don't think I can speak of a field from locality? But from frames of reference it seems possible. because if you refer a frame of reference to some decided scale, then I would chose Planck scale.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #919 on: 16/04/2013 22:30:40 »
You need more than one particle to create a field concept as I think. I can't prove it but it seems as a proper stepping stone. One seems from many ways to be a meaningless description, one object in a infinite space, does it move? But 'one' also fits locality. And locality craves frames of reference, because it is from those we get that 'speed of light in a vacuum'.

Then again, I'm still not sure I understand what a field is? A field only able to produce a single particle in a vacuum, could that exist? If a universe can be seen as a expression of a wave function, then that wave function must contain everything in that universe. A wave function can also describe one particle though, so it doesn't help me.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 22:37:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #920 on: 16/04/2013 22:58:27 »
We define four forces, defining a particle. "the electromagnetic force (between particles with electric charge), the strong force (between particles with color charge, such as the quarks), the weak force (between all leptons and quarks), and the gravitational force (between all particles).

These forces are mediated by yet another set of elementary particles, the gauge bosons: when two particles interact, they exchange one or more gauge bosons. The gauge bosons include the W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak nuclear force, the gluon, which mediates the strong nuclear force, and the photon, which mediates the electromagnetic force."

So four forces. And those should then be parts of a field, with 'particles' being? "The Standard Model groups matter particles into three generations, where each generation consists of two quarks and two leptons. The first generation is the up and down quarks, the electron and the electron neutrino; the second includes the charm and strange quarks, the muon and the muon neutrino; the third generation consists of the top and bottom quarks and the tau and tau neutrino.

The most natural explanation for this would be that quarks and leptons of higher generations are excited states of the first generations. If this turns out to be the case, it would imply that quarks and leptons are composite particles, rather than elementary particles."
==

The Present Theory of Fundamental Particles and forces
« Last Edit: 16/04/2013 23:05:11 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #921 on: 16/04/2013 23:13:07 »
So what have we in 'locality' then? We have a clock, 'c', becoming your local arrow, that also becomes a 'speed' when going up in scale comparing frames of reference. but we don't have a particle. Not if locality starts at Planck scale. and it is there it seems natural to put it, and a 'frame of reference'.

Which then might mean that a particle consist of several 'frames of reference', if you see my point.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #922 on: 16/04/2013 23:16:49 »
So maybe I'm wrong? Maybe one particle can be a field too? Expressing a (one) 'particle'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #923 on: 17/04/2013 10:21:32 »
Just want to point out one thing, I'm no scientist and this is thoughts :) I'm getting nervous here. Although I do take myself seriously on some things, what I write above are definitely thoughts, nothing more. But I got one more question, or thought. When you consider a light speed, are you also considering what presents it?

A boson right?
Something dimension less.

And we define some particles of rest mass the same, don't we? As 'point particles'? so when I define it to Plank scale, I'm already 'stepping up' from what we measure, instead using mathematics and logic to define a 'frame of reference', and a local arrow. Maybe that is wrong? Maybe I should look for it as dimension less quality? If you accept the idea of a field, would you define that as a dimension less quality, or property, too?

I really like the idea of paths, and relations.
It makes sense in my mind.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #924 on: 17/04/2013 10:30:37 »
It all depends on how you view a universe. I split it into frames of reference, treating each frame as unique, and defining the local reality, a 'multiverse' of sorts. And from that paths makes a lot of sense, and also the idea of us being like a 'bubble' inside something more, or maybe the other way around, everything that exist exist here, but we can't measure it. Because as soon as you let 'dimensions' go, you no longer have a strict definition of what a universe is. to expect it to have 'walls' of a sort as singular dimensions can only becomes meaningful from an idea of dimensions being 'real'. If they are relations to us, then they are real, for us, but it does not state that they exist, other as a description from where we are.

Why are contractions meaningful? Shouldn't a dimension be one thing, not many, measuring?
And why does your local reality define your universe?
Don't give me 'c', please, because none of us know what 'c' represent.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #924 on: 17/04/2013 10:30:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length